About your Search

20130512
20130520
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
. he said basically the revisions to the e-mails are what we described as a manipulation of the cia to get the truth that you want. he referred to it saying it was clear from the get-go that terrorist activity was involved in the attacks in benghazi, those that left four americans, including the u.s. ambassador there dead. today we heard from mccain as well as senator kellie ayotte, saying they want further testimony from hillary clinton, then secretary of state. here was representative issa earlier today, explaining the priorities to his committee. >> was the response correct? could it have been better? why weren't things at least tried or revved up to be tried. afterwards, how could you change talking points 12 times from what seems to be relatively right to what seems to be completely wrong? >> what i hear being assessed is all kinds of ulterior motives. i don't believe they existed. i don't think you can question that there was ma levelens on the part of the president, on the part of the secretary of state or anyone else. it was a very unfortunate incident that turned in to be,
, critics say it came up short. this new push stems from revelations that the cia's original talking points used by ambassador susan rice in the days after the attack had undergone significant edits by senior administration officials. >> for the president's spokesman to say well there were only words or technical changes made in the e-mail is a flat-out untruth when we know any reference to act of terror or al qaeda were removed from those talking points and it was done at a deputy's meeting just before susan rice went -- >> would you call this a cover-up? >> i'd call it a cover-up. i would call it a cover-up in the extent that there was wi willful removal of information which was obvious. >> he said untruths by the way. he did not use the word lie. >>> former defense secretary robert gates defending the administration's handling of the attacks in libya. >> based on everything i've read people really didn't know what was going on in benghazi contemporaneously, and to send some small number of special forces or other troops in without knowing what the environment was or threat was without ha
of his disguise allegedly trying to recruit a russian for the cia. 29-year-old ryan fogle, a junior level diplomat caught with sunglasses, maps, money, offering up to $1 million a year, instructions for opening a gmail account. russians released him to the u.s. embassy. he'll probably be sent home. at washington's spy museum a former cia spy says it happens all the time. >> i've used disguise. sometimes something as simple as a wig and glasses will do that. even though it may look sort of corny, or sixth grade to people, it can work. >> reporter: russians call it provocative. u.s. officials don't believe it will set back communications, the boston bombing and standoff in syria. secretary of state meeting with russian counterpart in sweden, presumably not trading spy story. for "today," andrea mitchell, nbc news, washington. >>> the widow of the boston bombing suspect tamerlan tsarnaev will cooperate with investigators according to new attorney that has defended several suspects before. russell has not been charged but the legal team has yet to release details of what she saw in the days l
there was no there-there. on friday we learned the cia talking points went through 12 rounds of changes with the heavier than usual previously thought involvement of the state doe apartment and the white house. that it was outlined in a series of e-mails. here's what the president had to say about it all today. >> the whole issue of this, of talking points, frankly throughout this process has been a sideshow. the e-mails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. suddenly three days ago, this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story. there's no there-there. and the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations. we've had folks who have challenged hillary clinton's integrity, susan rice's integrity, mike mullen and tom pickering's integrity. it's a given that mine gets challenged by these same folks. they've used it for fund-raising. >> was the president right? is the issue of how the talking points were changed a political sideshow? u.s. congressman michael turner is on the oversight and government
used by u.n. ambassador susan rice that ultimately removed any reference to al qaeda or previous cia warnings in the region. a senior intelligence official telling nbc news deputy cia director mike morell crossed out those references on this early draft. but morell's then boss david petraeus seemed to disagree with the watered down version that excluded any mention of security warnings. writing, frankly, i'd just as soon not use this. republicans accused the white house of playing politics right before the election. >> you don't have to be sherlock holmes to figure this out. the story of benghazi if accurately reported would undercut the narrative, al qaeda's on the run and they manipulated the evidence to help the political reelection. >> the white house says no political advisers were involved in the process. and following the justice department's widely criticized seizure of journalist phone records, the white house wednesday pressed congress to revive a law that would protect reporters from having to reveal information in the future. the white house is also going to face head-on
. the leak harmed a cia operation. it wanted to find out where the leak came from. they got those phone records. is that legal? how much freedom are we able to give up for so-called security? judge andrew napolitano is here. a slippery slope. did the justice department get a warrant from a judge to go get those records? >> well, we do not know, but we assumed by statements made that they use the patriot act authority which allows authorities to write their own search warrants as british soldiers were able to do prior to the american revolution -- stuart: yes, yes, yes. >> it directly contradicts the fourth amendment. they do not go to a judge, they do not present evidence of probable cause. agent a authorized agent be to do it. they show up within agent written search warrant. they serve it on the telephone company and the telephone company says, here are all the bills, telephone calls made and telephone calls received. stuart: could you make the case? it reaches the constitutional principle. >> yes. stuart: could you make a pragmatic case that the government needed this? they could det
for 42 years in the army come the state department, the defense department and 25 years with the cia most recently as the division chief in the office of soviet affairs. he has authored, co-authored and edited seven books and he is currently a senior fellow at the center for international policy and an adjunct professor of government at johns hopkins. it's clear that he is constantly writing and he has published just about everything except maybe "people" magazine. ladies and gentlemen i'm very pleased to introduce the author of the "national insecurity," mel goodman. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for the intro and thank you for the invitation. to talk about the book here. i am glad you started with eisenhower. i am going to start with eisenhower, greatly underestimated president. are you having trouble in the back? it greatly underestimated president. john talked about one morning. i briefly want to talk about for more -- warnings that eisenhower gave and i think you will appreciate in terms of national security policy and defense policy. you have to appreciate these warni
that perhaps benghazi talking points or e-mails back and forth between the state department or cia are not as compelling or understandable for most americans. but in this case it's difficult for the white house, particularly when they're having to comply with all kinds of investigations and everything else that's going to happen with congress, we're just seeing the beginning of these hearings and it's a big deal. i will point out the "new york times" has a great piece today looking at there were actually some liberal groups lumped in among these 400 groups, the vast majority of them were conservative. but there are about two dozen liberal organizations that got extra scrutiny. >> i wanted to ask you with our next topic, as a journalist your perspective on the controversy around the associated press, here's what came out on politico: "conflicting information is emerging over the process the justice department used to approve the subpoenas for associated press telephone record." >> it's difficult for me to take a view here. i'm a journalist, i've had many sources i protect and i wou
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)